The proper seat: A Bayesian discussion of the position of expert witnesses.

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The role of social scientists as expert witnesses is controversial because, for instance, social science is thought to involve too many uncertainties, or because science is viewed as incompatible with the adversary process of courtroom argumentation. This paper argues that the controversy stems from a confusion between the opinions formed in the minds of the members of a court, and the information on which these opinions are based. Within the framework of Bayesian decision theory these two notions are distinguished. When the task of expert witnesses is limited to providing information (likelihoods in Bayesian terminology), the danger that social scientists will misrepresent the reliability of their knowledge or make biased statements is not larger than in the normal conduct of their science.

This publication has 0 references indexed in Scilit: